This reminds me of the old JREF Days. When ANTPogo (Now going by A'isha) rhetorically asked a certain denier what else but people could the "99,000" Gas van document referred to, the Denier suggested Cattle.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I've searched but not found it. I did find this - the piece by Fisk (in The Independent), pulling together loose ends cited on Wiki and the link I first posted. Fisk concludes that the 4 people on the right are men and that the corpse on the left is that of a woman.

I usually can't stand Fisk, but this is really good work. Given that Fisk is a huge critic of Israel, one couldn't possibly accuse him of "Falsifying" the Holocaust with the intention of "promoting" Israel or Zionism.

Incidentally, this article of Fisk also came up when some brave soul attempted to share your very good explanation about Photography to Monstrous Lite - AKA EtienneSC. Naturally, he handwaved it by saying "But...Walendy! Walendy!"

This reminds me of the old JREF Days. When ANTPogo (Now going by A'isha) rhetorically asked a certain denier what else but people could the "99,000" Gas van document referred to, the Denier suggested Cattle.

LOL

ANTPogo/A'isha is really good.

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Robert Fisk wrote:I will let Struk describe the photograph in her own words as they appear in her terrifying new book Private Pictures – about the private photographs taken by soldiers, from the Boer and 1914-18 wars through to the post-2003 US invasion of Iraq.

But the tradition, of course, continues. Look at the videos Americans took of their murder victims in Iraq. I shall return to this subject next week.

Simply put, people are really sick. Soldiers and personnel who live and work in an environment where violence isn't only normal but routinized as part of work develop a habit of taking "voyeuristic" photos. And it's not just Soldiers. Some people are even offering tours of poor parts of Europe.

In late September Daniel Pipes, an American critic of Islamism, will take a group to Berlin, Paris and Stockholm to look at what he terms the “new Europe”. A highlight of the trip, he says, will be so-called “no-go zones”: places which, because of their large Muslim populations or high crime rates, are believed by anxious outsiders to be inaccessible to non-Muslims or the police.

IIRC in the Early days of Ghettoization, the German occupiers also took lots of photos, to "prove" what Jews really were in their eyes.

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

In late September Daniel Pipes, an American critic of Islamism, will take a group to Berlin, Paris and Stockholm to look at what he terms the “new Europe”. A highlight of the trip, he says, will be so-called “no-go zones”: places which, because of their large Muslim populations or high crime rates, are believed by anxious outsiders to be inaccessible to non-Muslims or the police.

IIRC in the Early days of Ghettoization, the German occupiers also took lots of photos, to "prove" what Jews really were in their eyes.

To be fair, Pipes did later publish an article where he declared "no-go zones" to be a misnomer.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.

It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"

Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.

I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.

It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"

Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.

I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.

I agree, Walendy doctored the photo. Only bone-headed deniers fall for that crap.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Photos, IMO, are tricky and never the literal truth. They are 2-dimensional, they stop time, we see prints from negatives, perspective is important, we don't know what is going on outside the frame or before/after the shutter release, there are quality issues, lenses distort what things look like, someone took the photo for a purpose, the negatives/prints have a chain of custody, etc. I have a big problem with posts of photos that seem to say, Look, literal proof! Like other evidence, they need to be evaluated in context, and, as you did, we need to ask critical questions about them on their own terms.

It is shocking that as a "believer" I don't automatically swallow whatever evidence is put in front of me.

In an old JREF discussion, someone quoted SM/Lemmy Caution's well thought out explanation on the nature of photography in a futile attempt to convince EtienneSC to {!#%@} off. EtienneSC, being too dense and the "polite" version of Monstrous, missed the whole point and kept ranting about how "But...Walendy! Walendy said it was fake!"

Ah, yes. The old Walendy disprove of the SK photos from Birkenau. To me it always looked like Walendy was the one who doctored the photo.

I was just about to say that. The only version of the photo that looked like that was in the screed published by Walendy. That is not a coincidence and I don't care what anyone says.

I agree, Walendy doctored the photo. Only bone-headed deniers fall for that crap.

Either he doctored it or the edge of the page bent towards the spine while he photocopied it - thus distorting the image by accident. Walendy realized that it was an accident, but decided he had been given an opportunity and ran with it. I lean towards the second one.

Finally, version D can be tracked down only to Udo Walendy’s Bild-"Dokumente" für die Geschichtsschreibung?, 1973. Walendy writes that the close up was taken from Kulakowski and thus should be identical with version B, but this is not the case. The retouched corpse appears as in version C, but the contours of the Sonderkommando prisoner have been not or somewhat slighter enhanced. . . .

b) Version B, C and D can be obtained from a bright version A with some pen strokes. It is easy and straightforward to imagine and reconstruct how they originated from version A.

c) The additional contours of the Sonderkommando prisoners in versions B and C and the blackening of the person in version C seem unnatural and do not fit to the lightening conditions of the photograph

d) The additional features in version B, C and D are lacking on the second photograph (ASM neg. 281) of the scene.

Moreover, [Walendy] has published version D and referenced it with Kulakowski, but the reproduction neither corresponds to the retouched variant in Gdyby Hitler zwyciezyl... or Die SS-Henker und ihre Opfer. So he either failed to provide a correct source for it or - even worse - did some retouching himself. . . .

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Monstrous, we've found a likely forgery - by Udo Walendy, a denier. Hah. Is that what you were trying to tell us all along?

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?

That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.

What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.I think he was just trolling ..

That's a new one. Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Yeah but shooting sick people was among the life-saving measures touted by David and Fritz Berg as Nazi policy for Jews.

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

No, he was some American guy from some imageboard I post in.I had at least 5 or 6 long debates with him until he disappeardd at some point. He is basically the guy who got me into fighting deniers. He quoted Rudolf much, and his "Dissecting the Holocaust" book. I wonder, did HC ever deal with Rudolf's works?

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Look at the bottom right of the image. That's not a human face. That is not a human arm. It very much resembles an artist's sketch.

What's sad is that a reverse image search I tried via tineye only gave me the pics on the HC blog, so it seems a higher resolution is hard to come by

A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

I remember some of Sonderkommando prints getting a similar treatment, but I'm not referencing the edits by Udo Walendy. I think the HC blog mentioned this when they refuted Carlo Mattogno's and Germar Rudolf's attempts to debunk them.

"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

Oozy_Substance wrote:Speaking of pictures, I saw somewhere that Mechanic posted a photo with another angle for this photo :

4b980074d4de3a123d93cf1bf5f56642.jpg

Mechanic, can you post it again?

That's one of a series of 3 frames, iirc. it was discussed eons ago at RODOH 1...To no conclusion.

What's there to discuss? It's a clear execution.I once met a denier who said on this picture that this is mercy killing because the women had typhus.I think he was just trolling ..

That's a new one. Typhus is not universally fatal and even at the Reinhard Camps victims were allowed a few days to recuperate.

Back in 1966, Playboy magazine had an interview with George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi Party, who was asked about all those pictures of bodies stacked like cordwood. He said the Party had an expert on this named Matt Bauer, who identified them as pictures of bombed-out German cities. Deniers will say anything, no matter how idiotic, to avoid facing the truth.

PS, I of course read that issue of Playboy only for the interviews and fiction (cough, ahem! )

"Relieve yourself of the illusion that you're writing for the ages. The ages will decide who is doing that on their own; you don't get a vote."

Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

I believe that in Rodoh1.0 Roberto (and probably Nick) discussed this exact method of preparing photographs for publication. The look IIRC got the handle "Soviet reprographic patina" back in that forum.

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

by the way Struk's Private Pictures, which covers the photo on the OP, arrived; when I finally finish Weinberg . . . well, if that ever happens!

. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

That makes sense. I have archaeology books from the same period where the B&W photos have been enhanced and have that weird look. Sometimes I think it is a simple as an artist simply touching up a print with a pencil.

Aaron Richards wrote:A suggestion of mine is that these images were enhanced by techniques available to publishers in the 50s/60s when they were first printed and published in atrocity reports to help with better visibility, a technique that's referred to as reprography.

That makes sense. I have archaeology books from the same period where the B&W photos have been enhanced and have that weird look. Sometimes I think it is a simple as an artist simply touching up a print with a pencil.

Udo Walendy did not draw the Spaghetti corpse. He just zoomed in on it, penciled a thighline, and claimed it is a corpse with an afro, rather than parts (limbs etc.) belonging to several other corpses.

Here is Pressac's print of Sonderkommando photograph #280

Here is the "enhanced" version, where the silhouettes suddenly have much better lighting. If you say this is Udo Walendy's magic, that would be incorrect, as it also appears on Wikipedia:

This is (most likely Udo Walendy's) retouched denier crop:

Notice how what would otherwise be too thin a neck is fattened, how a line is added to indicate two thighs, and more details to the face.

"...we had the duty towards our Volk (the German people) to kill this Volk (the Jewish people) that wanted to kill us." - Himmler in his 1943 Posen speech reminding any future holocaust denier how absurd their beliefs really are.I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

Aaron Richards wrote:Udo Walendy did not draw the Spaghetti corpse. He just zoomed in on it, penciled a thighline, and claimed it is a corpse with an afro, rather than parts (limbs etc.) belonging to several other corpses.

Here is Pressac's print of Sonderkommando photograph #280

Here is the "enhanced" version, where the silhouettes suddenly have much better lighting. If you say this is Udo Walendy's magic, that would be incorrect, as it also appears on Wikipedia:

That was me trying to be funny...and failing terribly.

I agree with all of your points. Walendy zoomed in and highlighted lines, to me it looks like spaghetti. It's a crappy trick that allows deniers to see what they want to see.